Ota Benga was a pygmy, who in 1904, was kidnapped from his wife and two children in the Congo.

I believe his wife and two children were slaughtered by the Force Publique.

He was exhibited as an apeman at the St Louis World Fair and the Bronx Zoo.

I'm not sure he was exhibited as an apeman at the World Fair, he interacted with visitors and charged them 5 cents to see his ceremonially pointed teeth.

As for the Bronx Zoo, he was exhibited there as

quote:The African Pigmy, "Ota Benga."

Not as an apeman.

Because of being caged, fed and treated like an animal, Benga committed suicide.

That's certainly an interesting account. Do you have a source for it? I see no record of him being kept in a cage or treated like an animal (treated very poorly, maybe, like a slave perhaps).

The account I see is that he gained the beginnings of an education, went to work at a tobacco factory and at the outbreak of WWI grew depressed at his declining probability of ever returning home and then he killed himself.

It was later discovered that Benga was actually a human being.

They may have thought of him as 'very low in the human scale', but human they thought him. That's why slavers took him. That's why Verner freed him. That's why they weren't surprised when he spoke English.

I have a feeling you've been told this story by someone who wanted you to believe something they couldn't convince you of honestly, and you believed it without double checking the facts because of some bias or another of yours. Take a read of this and if you still think this constitutes a 'scientific hoax' rather than 'an example of the scientific racism that took hold in the mid to late 19th Century' then you can provide your sources that show an actual hoax being perpetrated.

quote:From the Climategate emails, it appears evident the multiproxy dating approach actually involves methods which all have serious methodology issues. Dendrochronology, coral, and ice core dating are all admitted by those at the heart of the Climategate scandal to be weak, unreliable methods. They were deliberately reconstructed through bias to try and achieve results supportive of liberal evolution and global warming agendas as clearly seen in the emails. It is very obvious from reading the emails how shoddy the research behind such methods, as performed by the same clique responsible for Climategate, really has been.

I realize certain people on this forum believe very strongly in these methods, so I thought I'd see what thoughts are about the obvious flaws as witnessed from the Climategate emails.

... They were deliberately reconstructed through bias to try and achieve results supportive of liberal evolution and global warming agendas as clearly seen in the emails. ...

This would qualify for discussion on this thread, so please use this thread for further discussion of this issue.

I understand that wherever there are divergent views on a subject, there are bound to be those on the extremities of both sides who with excessive zeal, "amplify" or add-on to what they believe to be the truth, most often to gain popularity or prove a point to their detractors. However, your question presents something of a conundrum. If the evos are still wondering why there has been comparatively little response to this topic from creationists, the explanation is quite simple. Creationists view the entire theory of evolution as a hoax, so how can we be bothered (yawn) with singling out hoaxes within a hoax? That is what is so holistically reassuring about faith which is in harmony with clear evidence. Creationists feel little need to point out the so-called "hoaxes" within evolutionary theory when we can more easily point out the flaws in your dearest claims, or better still simply point to the truth which speaks for itself.

I'm glad you asked this question, although it could go a little off-topic. The answer I'm afraid is not scientific, it can't be; it concerns the conscience, the soul. It is about accountability and how all man naturally dislikes being held accountable to any authority. Don't deceive yourself, if you are truly deep down honest eg. the reason you don't want to park in that disabled parking when you're late is either because you care what people would think about you if they found out, or because you are concerned about a possible penalty from the authorities- either way there could be a consequence. Given that we live in an imperfect world we well know that most of our wrong-doings will go completely unpunished in this life, (and everybody does wrong, especially the "hidden" to others wrong, not so an all-seeing Creator)... As soon as we are compelled to believe in the existence of a Creator, we are confronted with the reality of some form of relationship with such Creator. Indeed a Creator who made us with such emotions, ambitions etc is most likely to be interested in us and this means we are laid bare before a supreme authority. Ouch! we don't like that idea, so we appease and numb our consciences and repeatedly tell ourselves that we are the result of an "accident" ie evolution.- We are therefore not answerable to a higher authority than the structures of man, that puts us at ease, Whew! we can do what we like therefore as long as we judge that it won't cause us harm or make us feel bad with our "lateral" human relations.

Don't deceive yourself, if you are truly deep down honest eg. the reason you don't want to park in that disabled parking when you're late is either because you care what people would think about you if they found out, or because you are concerned about a possible penalty from the authorities- either way there could be a consequence.

This, of course, highlights the difference between a certain class of believer and people who are truly moral. I don't park in handicapped parking spaces because there are people who need them. I don't. It has nothing to do with not wanting to get caught or concerns about what other people would think of me. On the other hand, there are those, such as you apparently, who have no concern for others but behave only out of fear of what would happen to you if you don't.

Who would you consider to be the truly moral person; one who does good because of concern for the well being of others or one who does good only because of fear of repercussions?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

Sorry but as a Christian I gotta say that the Creator you are trying to market is nothing more than a bling-bling pimp daddy unworthy of even acknowledgement much less worthy of respect or worship. Sorry but the God you are trying to market deserves nothing but contempt.

It is also totally irrelevant to the topic and totally false as well since almost all recognized major Christian sects have no problem with either the fact of evolution or with the Theory of Evolution as the only current explanation for the variety of life seen on Earth.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

That says a lot more about Christian imaginations than it does about any motive for perpetrating a massive multi-generational hoax requiring top-secret fossil manufacturing plants, elite covert fossil seeding teams, fake genetic analysis programs, secure educational facilities to ensure that all evolutionists keep their lying in agreement, etc., plus it doesn't account for the majority of scientists who happen to be religious, nor does it address the motivation of Christians who believe that accepting evolution puts the eternal salvation of their very souls at risk.

But as you noted, that's all a bit off-topic. Did you want to say anything about scientific versus creationist frauds and hoaxes?

Yes, you're right, but you could say it while including a nod to the topic.

You'd think people like Genologist would at least, before making such assertions, try to gather evidence of greater immoral behavior among those who accept evolution. Since the creation/evolution divide has a fair degree of correspondence with the conservative/liberal divide, that liberals are often regarded as gullibly soft-headed dupes for those in need would seem to be evidence against Genologist's hypothesis. Probably his evidence for scientific frauds and hoaxes is equally weak.